1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll – How often do you remove objects from photos?

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Liam Clifford, Jul 19, 2017.

  1. Gezza

    Gezza Well-Known Member

    There were 73 there last September.
     
    RogerMac likes this.
  2. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    :) we need a rolling on the floor emoticon;)
     
  3. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]

    Just for you Roger...
     
  4. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    Thanks - I have saved it (hopefully)
     
  5. Louise

    Louise Well-Known Member

    Sometimes I do like litter and lamp posts, I use a programme called fast Stone does anyone else use that?
     
  6. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    My favourite editor
     
  7. PhotoEcosse

    PhotoEcosse Well-Known Member

    I find Lightroom absolutely brilliant for cloning out (or healing) extraneous objects such as phone wires, tree branches, and any other reasonably small or regular objects. Anything really complicated I use Photoshop as a plug-in to Lightroom and use layers (but that is not frequent).

    But, answering the question: About a dozen times a year. But none of the options in the Poll are right for me. The reason for removing objects depends entirely upon what I am using the photo for and how different my original is from the result I want. Like others who have already responded, I add elements to an image more often than I remove elements from one.
     
  8. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    I used my old version of Photoshop Elements to remove a white plastic bag from a tree in one of my Member Gallery images, otherwise I only adjust colour balance / brightness / contrast / sharpness if I think it is necessary. And sometimes I rotate the image by 0.1 to 0.5 degrees if the horizon is obviously not level. If the image needs more work than this then I know it's not good enough and it will be deleted. With Kodachrome this was an expensive process (about £0.30 per shot last time I had a roll), but with digital a bad picture won't cost me anything.

    Also, if you look carefully at manipulated images, it is surprising how often the photographer has spent time correcting one problem and not noticed another one. In the AP issue dated 1st of July there was an article about photographing vintage aircraft, and on page 15 the photographer used a shot of a parked second world war P47-D single engine fighter to show how he had removed part of a second aircraft from the background, and also ropes in the foreground. But he had left the distortion produced by his wide angle lens, which exaggerated the different distances between the camera and the nearest part of the fuselage, and the front and rear ends of the fuselage. The result of this is that the both ends of the fuselage appear to curve away from the viewer (more so at the back) – if seen from above it would be curved like a banana. I looked at this image for a while, eventually realising that the centre of the image must be somewhere between where the front of the wing joins the fuselage and the cockpit, suggesting that the image was originally wider and was cropped to remove part of the image on the left hand side. So the engine cowling at the front of the aircraft appears to curve away from the viewer less that the tail of the aircraft. If you have the magazine, have a look at the picture.
     
  9. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    In the entry above, when I say 'But he had left the distortion produced by his wide angle lens', I should have said 'But he had left the barrel distortion produced by his wide angle lens'. I must try to use the forum whilst still fully awake.
     
  10. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    Uncorrected barrel and pincushion distortions are becoming History.
    Most makers now make only gross correction in their lenses. this is then fine tuned in camera firm ware. to remove residual distortions in the Jpegs. And/or the instructions to remove them, are embedded in the raw file, for the raw processors to remove.
    this is certainly true of my Fuji cameras and lenses. I have never seen the uncorrected images, though the are visible when using some more basic processors.
    The same firmware corrections are now made for various colour fringings and even to reduce the effect of Diffraction at small apertures.

    Interestingly, every time you stitch a panorama you discard information, sometimes whole objects, and you can make choices between what to keep and what to mask. This is done mostly entirely automatically, but it is also an option you can make for your self in better software. Invariably stitching software attempts to correct for perspective distortion, but it often gets the horizon wrong. So again in better software, this and verticals can be corrected.
     
  11. cliveva

    cliveva Well-Known Member

    Does this include dust ?
     
  12. cliveva

    cliveva Well-Known Member

    Not to mention adding, by filling the corners of panoramas using content aware fill.....o_O
     
  13. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    I Do often fill corners and top an bottom intersections , but I never use content aware. A it is a very blunt tool and pretty unaware. I much prefer to blend in my own cloneings
     
  14. Scissors. When I find an annoyance on my photos, just cut around !
    Not many people like my photos.
     

Share This Page